Recent comments from SciRate

Isaac Kim Apr 11 2019 07:24 UTC

Hi Mikhail,

You are basically saying that the exact overlap between the ideal and non-ideal state decays exponentially in N. I agree with you on this but you are merely attacking a straw man here. Exponentially small overlap does not imply that you cannot do fault-tolerant quantum computation. No

...(continued)
Dyakonov Apr 10 2019 10:12 UTC

Dear Barbara,
I agree, and this is also my point: " **it cannot be said that the theory of quantum error correction and fault-tolerance guarantees that robust quantum computers will ever be built**.
As well as that **this is given by "the physics"**.

In particular the **quantum physics** which

...(continued)
Dyakonov Apr 10 2019 09:43 UTC

Dear Elizabeth, I fully agree with what you are saying.

Except that faulty gates are not the only source of errors. There are also unwanted interactions within the system of qubits, as well as between this system and the environment, and also because the initial state cannot be exactly |000...>,

...(continued)
C. Jess Riedel Apr 05 2019 19:05 UTC

> It's not a complete analogy to the authentication game that Sandu has
> the parties play

Here's a closer classical analogy: Alice prepares an ensemble of classical bits. Each bit is random (determined by a coin toss) and, for some fixed partitioning of the bits into pairs, Alice writes down i

...(continued)
Dyakonov Apr 02 2019 18:41 UTC

Victory Omole, The Nobel prize was given "for ground-breaking experimental methods that enable measuring and manipulation of individual quantum systems."

Here "Individual quantum systems*" means individual atoms and individual photons, definitely NOT many-body quantum systems, as you apparently

...(continued)
Barbara Terhal Apr 02 2019 11:37 UTC

My comment was not so much in reply to Dyakonov's paper (i.e. a corroboration or refutation of his points) but rather a general contribution to the discussion.

Aram Harrow Apr 02 2019 11:06 UTC

I think we sometimes tend to respond to critics by rewriting their criticism into something more reasonable. Are correlations in the power spectrum of noise something that may be influenced by our gates and may await more experimental data and more theoretical insight? Yes, probably. Is this what

...(continued)
Barbara Terhal Apr 02 2019 06:20 UTC

Naturally, it cannot be said that the theory of quantum error correction and fault-tolerance guarantees that robust quantum computers will ever be built. One particular challenge is the ability to turn gates off and on: in almost all implementations this works by meeting resonance conditions which a

...(continued)
Elizabeth Crosson Apr 01 2019 21:56 UTC

Even without studying quantum information theory, there is an immediate way to see that quantum computation is more robust than classical analog computation. This argument is based on linearity. Consider a sequence of unitary operators $U_1 ,...,U_T$. For concreteness, each $U_i$ acts on two qub

...(continued)
Victory Omole Apr 01 2019 14:27 UTC

>My previous experience tells me that it is never possible to control a many-body quantum (or even classical) system on a microscopic level.

If your previous experience tells you this, then i encourage you to gain new experience because experimentalists have been controlling many-body quantum sys

...(continued)
Dyakonov Apr 01 2019 08:45 UTC

Dear Steve,

Thank you very much for your invitation and your friendly attitude! However it seems to me that we live in parallel worlds: the world of quantum information theory, which has a rather poor experimental support, and the world of physics, where the relationship between theory and experi

...(continued)
Steve Flammia Apr 01 2019 00:58 UTC

Michel, you should come to a quantum information conference!

You may feel like your critiques have fallen on deaf ears, but that is not true. If we don't pay explicit attention it is because, as Aram and others have pointed out above, we feel that we have already addressed your concerns. I know

...(continued)
Michel Dyakonov Mar 31 2019 19:01 UTC

OK, I have not studied these papers yet.
Let us return to this subject in 10 years when hopefully someone will manage to factor 15 by Shor (full Shor's algorithm, please, no cheating with the "compiled version".

Noon van der Silk Mar 30 2019 21:58 UTC

This is awesome!

Aram Harrow Mar 29 2019 15:39 UTC

One more thing. The fidelity between the actual and ideal states will be exponentially small but this is not a barrier to FTQC. The same occurs with classical memory.

The classical analogue of the fidelity expression you quote is: "What are the odds that all the spins in your hard drive are poi

...(continued)
Victory Omole Mar 29 2019 15:36 UTC

That is some evidence it can be efficiently scaled up. You would have said the same thing if those experiments were not done at all; but the number and quality of qubits experimentalists encode fault tolerantly seem to be increasing with time and effort and there is no evidence it's going to stop.

Aram Harrow Mar 29 2019 15:30 UTC

This objection is a bit of a moving target. First there is the proposal that there is some reason that quantum computers cannot work _in principle_. Then when people respond by saying that this reason is (a) vague and unspecified and (b) contrary to accepted principles of locality in physics, the

...(continued)
Aram Harrow Mar 29 2019 15:23 UTC

Of course there will be some undesired extra terms in the Hamiltonian, which we can call V. However, V is not a completely arbitrary $2^n$-dimensional matrix. We can expand it as
$$ V = V_0 + V_1 + V_2 + \cdots + V_n .$$
where $V_j$ contains only tensor products of $j$ non-identity Pauli matrice

...(continued)
Dyakonov Mar 29 2019 15:06 UTC

So far there is no evidence that this can be efficiently scaled up

Ashley Mar 29 2019 11:38 UTC

The good news is that some basic principles of quantum error-correction have already been demonstrated on existing quantum computing hardware, e.g. see https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.02359.pdf and references therein.

Dyakonov Mar 29 2019 09:58 UTC

I would like to see an experimental realization of these ideas with a large enough number of qubits, say 10 -20

Isaac Kim Mar 29 2019 02:37 UTC

In quantum error correction we deal with this problem by actively performing error-detecting measurement and correcting the error. The measurement will be faulty in reality, but this can be dealt with by repeating the measurement; see Section IV of https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0110143 for example.

...(continued)
Dyakonov Mar 28 2019 15:36 UTC

No doubt that the Schroedinger equation describes the evolution of the wavefunction, hence of its 2^N amplitudes. The problem is that in reality the Hamiltonian, and hence the evolution of the quantum amplitudes, can never be exactly what you would like it to be: H=H_0 +V. Also, the initial conditio

...(continued)
Aram Harrow Mar 27 2019 14:29 UTC

The wavevector is determined exactly as the solution to the equation
$$ \frac{d}{dt}|\psi(t)\rangle = -iH(t) |\psi(t)\rangle.$$
While the state has $2^n$ dimensions, those do not show up as experimentalist-tunable parameters in this equation. How many tunable parameters are there? Well, those s

...(continued)
Dyakonov Mar 27 2019 14:22 UTC

"The only place where 2^N parameters appear is in the wavefunction, not in the Hamiltonian or Lagrangian".

- Certainly. As explicitly stated, I am talking about the wavefunction, which describes the **state** of the quantum system at a given time. You seem to agree that this state is generally d

...(continued)
Aram Harrow Mar 27 2019 09:33 UTC

This argument lacks detail so it is hard to clearly refute, however one point is clearly wrong. A quantum computer, or quantum mechanics experiment, with $N$ qubits can be described by $O(N)$ or at most $O(N^2)$ parameters. This is because physical Hamiltonians are usually described by 2-body inter

...(continued)
Wojciech Kryszak Mar 15 2019 13:22 UTC

Dear Blake,

The packing (i.e. the title) is catchy and eye-candy indeed and you are right to accuse the autors of over-selling the content.
At the same time, to be fair, we need to acknowledge their reservation: ,,accepting the photons’ status as observers'' is condicio sine qua non for the resu

...(continued)
Blake Stacey Mar 14 2019 21:58 UTC

I don't think one can call an experiment an implementation of the Wigner's friend scenario if it's an experiment on photons. The essence of the thought-experiment is that quantum weirdness should apply to a sufficiently careful preparation of *an entire living, thinking observer.* If the "friends" a

...(continued)
Blake Stacey Mar 13 2019 22:39 UTC

This paper draws a connection between "antidistinguishability" and Symmetric Informationally Complete measurements. One example of such a connection was already known, and it's a bit of a funny story. If you go back to Caves, Fuchs and Schack's "Conditions for compatibility of quantum state assignme

...(continued)
Jacques Pienaar Mar 13 2019 18:46 UTC

Yes, I was aware of Rovelli's paper and my aim was to be loosely consistent with it, although the papers differ in that he is concerned with the entropic arrow of time, whereas I am mainly concerned with the causal arrow. It is a deep question what the connection is between the two, though the sugge

...(continued)
Jacques Pienaar Mar 13 2019 18:40 UTC

Yes, well spotted! I made an error of omission in the definition of `layered'. It should include the proviso that "every path from an ancestor of X to a descendant of X is intercepted by a node in the layer containing X". That is what I meant, and it is assumed in order to carry out the proofs in th

...(continued)
Mark M. Wilde Mar 12 2019 23:46 UTC

We welcome any and all citation requests, even those having to do with pop culture. Thanks for sharing :)

"Thauma" is Greek for "wonder or marvel":

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B8%CE%B1%CF%8D%CE%BC%CE%B1

which preceded Pratchett by several millennia :)

We indicated this Greek origi

...(continued)
Nicole Yunger Halpern Mar 12 2019 22:34 UTC

Love the idea! I'm surprised to see no citation of Terry Pratchett, though. https://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Thaum

Marcel Fröhlich Mar 04 2019 10:52 UTC

Makes sense. Thank you Wojciech.

Wojciech Kryszak Mar 04 2019 10:38 UTC

Dear Marcel,

This condition is just for the ,,All'' face of their Janus-like theorem, and would $ \Omega $ be indeed inaccessible, we would experience just the ,,Nothing''-face.

That is how I understand that.

BR,
Wojciech

Marcel Fröhlich Mar 04 2019 10:01 UTC

I struggle a bit with section 3.4:
"... if the experimenters are given access to an incompressible number (such as Ω) ...".

Isn't the point that exactly this is not possible, because numbers like Ω are not computable?

Cupjin Huang Feb 16 2019 04:17 UTC

Hi Tomoyuki,

Thank you for bringing your work to our attention. This paper is a follow-up to [arXiv:1804.10368v2][1], which were together submitted to a journal in December. We will be happy to cite your concurrent work, and are excited to hear that other people are thinking along the same line

...(continued)
tomoyuki morimae Feb 16 2019 02:02 UTC

The result in Theorem 1 of this paper was already shown in Theorem 6 of our paper
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.01637.pdf

Māris Ozols Feb 15 2019 08:37 UTC

You're right, Aaronson's result applies to integer matrices. I should have linked to [Valiant's original paper][1] which provides a reduction between the case of integer matrices and 0-1 matrices.

[1]: https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3975%2879%2990044-6

Jalex Stark Feb 14 2019 23:43 UTC

While it is #P hard to compute the permanent of 0-1 matrices, the paper you linked doesn't show this fact. The linear optical proof of Aaronson applies to matrices with entries complicated enough that they can represent universal quantum computation when taken as the beam-splitting unit in a linear

...(continued)
Māris Ozols Feb 13 2019 11:52 UTC

Doesn't this contradict the fact [computing the permanent is #P-hard][1]? In particular, it is also NP-hard, so it should not have a polynomial-time algorithm.

[1]: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2011.0232

Steve Flammia Feb 12 2019 13:33 UTC

Casual readers of this article, especially those in the target audience of students with an engineering background, might be misled by the way that the term "defect" is being used here in the title and abstract. In an engineering or manufacturing context, a defect is an imperfection that is to be av

...(continued)
Wojciech Kryszak Feb 06 2019 08:58 UTC

Your work - being a very nice technical result in the framework of causal modeling - has also a familiar ring to the ideas of Carlo Rovelli on [perspectival time's arrow][1].
A little different genres but the same main theme: the asymmetries of time are *produced* by the observer, rather than being

...(continued)
Jerry Finkelstein Feb 05 2019 21:10 UTC

"Result 1" of this article is "Tomography...is possible...if and only if G is a *layered* DAG.
Nikolov and Tarassov [Discrete Applied Mathematics 154 (2006) 848-860] state (in their first paragraph) that *any* DAG can be layered.

Māris Ozols Jan 31 2019 10:24 UTC

A big hit from 1997 ([https://doi.org/10.1038/37539][1]) with more than 5000 citations. Great to see it also on arXiv.

[1]: https://doi.org/10.1038/37539

Thomas D. Galley Jan 14 2019 16:55 UTC

Thank you for your comment.

One conclusion which can be drawn from our work, and which is also found in other work such as the one you reference, is of the “overcompleteness” of the axioms of quantum theory. By this I mean that one can remove one of the axioms of the theory and then recover it fr

...(continued)
Tianyi Peng Jan 14 2019 05:25 UTC

Thanks for the interesting idea! One quick question is what the results of two same experiments that start and end at the same time? Will these results be exactly the same?

Mankei Tsang Jan 11 2019 14:29 UTC

We studied this type of diffusion-parameter-estimation problem in

(1) Shilin Ng, Shan Zheng Ang, Trevor A. Wheatley, Hidehiro Yonezawa, Akira Furusawa, Elanor H. Huntington, and Mankei Tsang, "Spectrum analysis with quantum dynamical systems," Physical Review A 93, 042121 (2016); http://dx.doi.org/

...(continued)
Christoph Simon Jan 10 2019 21:19 UTC

Very interesting. I should read your paper more carefully, but it sounds like this (pretty old) paper by Vladimir Buzek, Nicolas Gisin and myself (which was based on even older work by Nicolas Gisin) is in some sense complementary: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.170405

...(continued)
Stephen Jordan Jan 08 2019 21:36 UTC

In response to the government shutdown I have put the zoo up at:

http://quantumalgorithmzoo.org/

It remains 6 months out of date, but I hope to update soon....